The House passed the budget bill through the settlement process just before anniversary, and the 10-year state block has now regulated or enforced new laws on artificial intelligence.
The measure was welcomed by President Donald Trump on his true social platform as “arguably the most important law to sign the history of our country” and cut the House by 215-214 votes. This includes many of the Republican legislative priorities across a range of policy areas.
However, moratoriums have received a lot of criticism from the entire political spectrum. Supporters argue that it levelles the arena and prevents what Georgia Republican Rep. Rich McCormick calls “a cross-contamination of the law” at the state level. However, opposition pointed out that previous federal inaction on the topic requires state-level action when opposing moratoriums.
“The argument in favour of this provision only works if we believe the federal government will quickly pass through broad guardrails to protect the masses. Or we believe that AI will become a completely benign technology developed by companies that do not require regulatory constraints. “Given the lack of federal government action against other emerging technology issues in the past, and the emergence of new harm from this technology that we are already seeing, it is extremely difficult to justify this blanket state-level AI regulatory moratorium.”
And the Senate could pose a major obstacle to the passage of the bill, not only because it could violate procedural rules that limit the number of foreign provisions contained in the Settlement Act, but could also pose a major obstacle to the passage of the bill. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, reportedly called the moratorium a “terrifying policy,” and he vowed to rule out “they’ll do everything they can.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, noted that her state has passed laws to protect recording artists from similarities and deepfakes generated by AI. And she said at a recent subcommittee hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “we cannot call a suspension until something that preempts the federal government.”
State officials are similarly opposed to federal moratoriums on AI regulation. A bipartisan group of 40 state attorney generals wrote to Congress before the bill opposed the initiative, saying that without a federal lawsuit, Americans need protection from the harm technological poses.
“The impact of such a widespread moratorium will wipe out and completely destroy the rational state efforts to prevent known harm related to AI,” the letter states. “This bill has impacted hundreds of existing and pending state laws passed by both Republican and Democrat Congresses and considered. Several existing laws have been featured in the books for many years.”
Similarly, Tim Storey, CEO of the state legislature’s National Congress, wrote a letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders expressing “strong opposition” from his organization to the measure. The story said it was “a violation of the state’s authority to effectively legislate this rapidly evolving and consequential policy area,” and violated Senate procedures.
“The state historically has served as a key institute of democracy and has created policies that reflect the unique needs, values and priorities of its components,” writes Storey. “Legal flexibility is essential in the realm of AI, where privacy, cybersecurity, fraud, labor, education and public safety impacts are profound and continually evolving.
However, the proponents of the regulations are held firmly. At the Energy and Commercial Subcommittee hearing just before the bill passed, lawmakers stood behind the moratorium.
“The patchwork of various state laws is not good for innovation for businesses and consumers, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid,” Indiana Republican Rep. Russ Fulcher said at the hearing.
And California Rep. Jay Obernolté has expressed a similar warning about the “patchwork” of the state’s AI law, lamenting that he wants to see strong federal regulations and is “picked as such a divisive partisan issue.”
“Cost and contradictory regulations are a surefire recipe for destroying technological revolutions and destroying small innovators,” Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, testified at the hearing. “AI Moratorium provides innovators with some breathing space and a smart way to address this issue by ensuring the development of a robust national AI market.”
